Skip to main content

About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
confusing. >> must have been a really interesting class. >>> it is a question posed by candidate ronald reagan. over three decades ago. >> are you better off than you were four years ago? >> and it's a message the candidates are still actually using today. >> the president has no record to run on. in fact, every president since the great depression who asked americans to send them into a second term could say that you are better off today than you were four years ago, except for jimmy carter and for president barack obama. >> if people think they're better off, i would say, well, take a look at the numbers when it comes to median household income, which is down every year for the last four years. >> the obama administration, however, is taking the other side. >> you want to know whether we're better off. i got a little bumper sticker for you. osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive! >> bloomberg business week took a look at that very question in this week's election issue asking about the price of your food, the value of your home and your paycheck. staff writer took the que
before. >> it's been done a couple of times. >> now you're jack kennedy? >> ronald reagan. >> now you're jack kennedy? >> and tax cuts and auto bailout and those are big issues that got really heated between joe biden and paul ryan at last night's vice presidential debate so i immediately thoughthe person i would have to call on this to fact check it would be christine romans and she was available. thank you. so here's the deal. it just stands to reason that they both seem to say something with such confirmation in their voices and it's hard to say how this can be different. >> it's politics, my friend. talk taxes because i keep hearing this 20% across the board tax cut and then i hear the counterclaim, you can't pay for that. the math doesn't work. >> you can't make the math work. >> we have looked into this and the tax policy center says you can't make the math work. paul ryan's claim that you can cut it 20% across the board and keep it intact all of the while keeping it neutral and it says given the information available that we have about their plans is just not possible to cut th
revenue. ronald reagan, six years during his tax reform we went from $600 billion to $1 trillion worth of revenue. that's a 67% increase. even george bush's tax cuts, in 2003, federal revenue was a little under $1.8 trillion. before the housing vote, $2.5 trillion. that's a 42% increase in revenue to the federal government. lowering marginal tax rates is incentivizing. >> i hear you on that. what people are taking exception to is without details, as a taxpayer, of what's on the table and what's off the table, it's a very easy way to throw out numbers without necessarily being having to be responsible for the math working out. i mean i thought martha raddatz did a very good job on this. she's sort of like you're not again going to give specifics. and chris wallace -- >> you are giving specifics as you're giving directions to congress. this is what ceos do. listen, as you design this, make sure that people making $200,000 will not have their tax burden lowered. but we're going to lower their marginal tax rate because that produces inseverives for them to create jobs. for people making le
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)